Explosion: Residents don’t rule out natural gas

Friday

May 11, 2007 at 12:01 AMMay 11, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Preliminary findings released by the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) this past Wednesday, May 9, about the cause of the November 2006 Danversport explosion, have satisfied only some of the curiosities that still plague the community. In a community well known for frequent natural gas leaks, many Danvers residents were frustrated by what appeared to be a lack of consideration for natural gas to have contributed to the severity of damage on the night of the explosion.

Carolyn Moore/Correspondent

“A few questions were not addressed in the report,” said Susan Tropeano, a Danvers resident and member of the community group SAFE (Safe Area for Everyone), which has promised its own investigation.

The CSB, after a presentation to the press in the morning, presented detailed results to the community that evening that covered everything from an overview of the explosion, an explanation of the companies involved, and ultimately to the findings that determined the explosion to have been caused by an accumulation of flammable solvent vapors that involuntarily ignited within the CAI building. The role of natural gas was ruled out, according to Robert Hall, a member of the CSB investigative team.

In a community well known for frequent natural gas leaks, many Danvers residents saw this definitive conclusion as a major point of contention. Many community members were frustrated by what appeared to be a lack of consideration for natural gas to have contributed to the severity of damage on the night of the explosion.

“Why can’t it be a combination of natural gas and solvents?” asked Andre Chiaradia during the public comment segment of the evening, when community members were given an opportunity to submit questions to the CSB for further consideration.

It was not that community members did not agree with the claim that chemical solvents caused the explosion. But many were confused by what appeared to be an avoidance of an explanation regarding the possibility that natural gas may have worsened the situation.

“From what I’ve heard tonight, it really doesn’t go along with what I saw as a neighbor,” said John Joyce, a Bates Street resident, who never recalls smelling solvents, but has always noticed natural gas in the air.

Others echoed the notion and were further perplexed by the lack of investigation into the rich history of natural gas leaks in Danvers.

“There are probably more leaks than were reported by Keyspan. It is a chronic problem,” said Ed Sanborn, an activist and member of SAFE.

According to SAFE, while the community doesn’t dispute the preliminary findings of the CSB, many feel that the role of natural gas must be explored further.

“We feel the reasons given out for the exclusion of natural gas are weaker than the community comments otherwise,” said Jan Schlichtmann, lawyer for SAFE. “The community is very concerned that all potential contributors are explored,” he said.

“We don’t necessarily need it to be gas. We need it to be known,” said Stacey Stamm, a resident of Water Street, who emphasized the importance of assessing all factors that led to the severity of the explosion. The degree of damage and potential loss of life could have been catastrophic if the explosion had happened during the daylight hours, she said.

Seeking all the answers

The purpose of the CSB investigation is not to determine culpability or enforce the law, but rather to determine the origin of problems that lead to such tragic events, to avoid such situations in the future — not just in the affected community, but in the entire nation.

Many like Stamm are grateful for the comprehensive findings that CSB has offered in its preliminary report, but their fear still gets the best of them.

“We want every single stone overturned,” said Mike McDermott, a resident of 3 Bates St., one of the homes featured in the CSB PowerPoint presentation as having suffered extreme damage.

As a voice for the Danversport community, SAFE members said they are appreciative of the effort and hard work that the CSB has done thus far.

“We want to thank the CSB for helping us out with the investigation,” said Tracey Green, SAFE member.

However, in the midst of all the attention centering on the preliminary findings offered by the CSB, SAFE is conducting an investigation of its own. SAFE has a vested concern in finding out the role of natural gas, as many members suffer from the constant reminder of regular leaks in their community.

Their fears are all the more enhanced following the November 2006 explosion.

“This is an extremely tight neighborhood that is trying very hard to answer the question, ‘What happened to me when my neighborhood blew up?’” said Massachusetts state representative and Danvers resident Ted Speliotis during the public comment portion of Wednesday’s community meeting. Speliotis addressed what appeared to be a repetitive questioning of the board by many community members. “SAFE is just trying to find out the answers,” he said.

For more information about CSB and its ongoing investigation, go to its Web site, www.chemsafety.gov. To see its PowerPoint presentation, go online to ftp://ftp.csb.gov/danvers.